radarr_get_notification_schema

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description confirms the read-only nature with 'Return', but adds little beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It mentions 'available fields/options', which is somewhat redundant with 'schema'. No additional behavioral context like authentication or rate limits is provided, but the annotation already covers safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'Return' and directly states the resource and scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly identifies what the tool returns, and the output schema handles return value details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema completely documents the input. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Return' with the resource 'notification providers schema', and clarifies it exposes 'available fields/options'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_get_notification (which returns a specific notification) and radarr_list_notification (which lists configured notifications).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (when you need the schema of notification providers) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use before creating/updating a notification' or 'do not use for getting a specific notification's configuration'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.